Nevalinna on Cobraf : Yeong E Kim funded by Industrial Heat and Cumberland & Western Resources

  • The number of intragranular hydrogen bubbles or micro-cavities in the metal is important. It is inside of these tiny pockets of hydrogen gas that pressures can reach enormous values. Interestingly, these features increase as hydrogen loading increases. They are also found mostly near the surface of the metal powder (why LENR is more or less a surface phenomenon). And I've also found out why "cracks" and SURFACE cavities seem to be associated with excess heat generation. Hydrogen can be "trapped" by surface cracks and pores. In these areas, there can be greater levels of hydrogen absoprtion into the lattice. Basically, as the crack propagates into the metal via hydrogen embrittlement, intergranular bubbles form nearby. But it is important we make a distinction between surface cavities (in which the trapped hydrogen has a clear path of migration out during desorption) and INTERIOR bubbles/cavities inside the lattice. In these bubbles, there is no path for the hydrogen to escape except back through the lattice. This means when the hydrogen bubbles are re-heated rapidly, the already very high pressures can be boosted to incredible levels. If the rate is fast enough and the pressure peaks, LENR can form. Or, in some cases, the cavities can literally rupture damaging the lattice.


    All of this was in the literature when Andrea Rossi launched the JONP. I want to slap myself for not tracking down all this literature sooner.

    • Official Post

    I don't understand such a logics. Actually, just the lack of well defined hydrides opens the way for increasing yield of LENR with increasing partial pressure of hydrogen within lattice, as its concentration may rise for ever. Once the material forms defined hydride, then the excessive hydrogen will get consumed by formation of hydride and its saturation curve will stall...


    I don't agree. Once a metal hydride is at a temperature above it's dissociation temperature the the bound hydrogen (which may be deep within a newly evolved lattice structure) becomes another source of the 'increasing partial pressure' you talk about.

  • Abd wrote: “
    “kirkshanahan wrote: Hmmm...from Shanahan, Thermochimica Acta, 441 (2006) 210–214
    "However, the field is still plagued by the assumption that bulk loading level (in reference to Pd) is a key parameter. So far, no one has reported that Pt can be made to form a bulk hydride, so clearly this is not a key parameter."


    ”Remarkably, Shanahan is assuming that a report of possible heat from platinum is then applicable to all the palladium work, where loading is clearly a "key parameter" as to what was known. “


    Remarkably Abd fails to understand that what chemists typically do is contrast and compare chemical reactions between and amongst near neighbors in the Periodic Table. Pd and Pt are nearest neighbors, nominally having the same outer shell level electron configurations. That would suggest similar chemistries, but amazingly enough, as we know, Pd hydrides while Pt does not. *But* - the fact that a non-hydriding material produced a small but significant apparent excess heat signal *suggests strongly* that the causative process is a surface phenomenon. That in turn suggests it may be possible to observe apparent excess heat with *any* metal, as long as its surface has the special characteristics needed to do so (the ‘special active state’ or ‘SAS’).


    So what about Pd. What does high loading do? I believe I already went thru this in this thread some time ago, but quickly, what it does is causes the lattice to expand. This creates stresses inside the material which in turn are relived in various ways. Primarily, dislocation loop punching occurs, which creates steps and edges (to use some surface chemistry terms) on the Pd surface, which I contend are at least helpful to forming the ‘special active state’. Cracks also occur, which can also participate in the ‘SAS’. But it is the surface that matters.


    Abd then wrote: “That is, a huge body of experimental work correlated heat with loading.”


    That would be McKubre and his Degree of Loading experiments conducted in the 1993-4 timeframe and reported in his 1998 EPRI report (not generally available to the public). However, there were several people (just ask Jed) that reproduced apparent excess heat signals in the 1990-2 timeframe, before the ‘high loading’ mantra became cold fusion doctrine, and it is not actually known *exactly* what loading they achieved. High loading in Pd helps form the SAS, but time, temperature, and chemistry can replace that, as was shown by the earliest work in the field.


    More Abd: “What has now come up is the possibility that high loading results in a condition (NAE formation, Ed would say) that then does allow reaction, if the condition is maintained, at lower loading, and Ed has shown this experimentally, in recent work that is, as yet, unconfirmed but which is quite plausible.”


    Loading can assist in the SAS (the non-nuclear ‘NAE’) formation. From the accumulated experience it is also clear that the SAS is quite fragile, which makes studying it a very difficult task. As long as the SAS is present, at-the-electrode recombination can occur, which induces the heat distribution change that causes the calibration constant shift, which in turn if not accounted for produces apparent excess heat signals.


    Abd quotes Shanahan:
    “and from Shanahan, Thermochimica Acta, 428 (2005) 207–212
    "Obviously, since Pt does not form hydrides, bulk loading is not the relevant number."This is "obvious" from the original report of Storms' work on Pt from ICCF8 (2000), which I reanalyzed in my 2002 publication, which I wrote in 2000. I guess it takes Ed (and others) awhile to catch on...”


    Then Abd writes:
    “Shanahan became obsessed about that paper, which is about platinum, not palladium. I have written about this elsewhere here.”


    And I have responded, but you have not adapted. I am ‘obsessed’ with this picture just like I am ‘obsessed’ with quantum mechanical descriptions of electron shells and thermodynamic relationships between enthalpy, entropy, and chemical potential. It’s too bad you aren’t. Perhaps you’d quit trying to insult me and understand me instead.


    “As an isolated report, the Storms' work on platinum is largely irrelevant.” This is absolutely incorrect. The Pt work is probably the most relevant work extant that shines light on what is happening in an F&P-type electrochemical cell. However, when one pathologically insists “It must be nuclear”, then perhaps the Pt work is not relevant. But ‘relevance’ in a pathological belief is rarely defined logically. Emotionally is usually the pathway used. I prefer the non-emotional, non-nuclear picture derived from studying the Pt work myself.


    “Storms does claim that palladium is not necessary, that NAE can form in other materials, but that remains to be established clearly. There is anecdotal evidence, only.”


    Just as I explained above. If the surface conditions are right, you get the effect. And it requires no nuclear reactions.


    “Shanahan was correct in that "bulk loading" would not be relevant to platinum results. However, he is here making it appear that this was more general, that he anticipated what is not being mentioned in his paper. He did not, unless his paper confused the platinum results with the palladium results.”


    In 2000, when I wrote my first paper on it, I presented a chemical mechanism for a non-nuclear Fleischmann-Pons-Hawkins Effect that explained how and why one gets apparent excess heat signals in the F&P-type electrochemical cell set-up. That mechanism was not metal-specific, but as any good chemist knows, different metals will express the chemistry in slightly different ways. So Yes, I did present a general description derived from a specific case. It's called 'inductive reasoning'.


    “From his CCS theory, it is all artifact, and if that is correct, he would still, then, have the correlation with loading in palladium to explain.” - See above…


    “Storms does explain the correlation, or it can easily be supplied. Storms' theory has the effect take place in cracks at the surface of the palladium, and the particular kind of cracking that is effective is caused by stress to the material from loading. His theory would predict then that other methods of forming the required cracks or similar structures of the required dimensions (they are "nanocracks," very small) could produce heat without the high loading.”


    He supplies a suggestion as to why it exists, just like he presumes nuclear reactions. He might be right, wrong, or anywhere in between. Until full reproducibility is achieved however, it is all just speculation (my stuff too!) that may or may not aid in reaching that fully reproducible experiment.


    “His actual experimental result was that he set up a reaction with high loading, generating the heat, and he maintained the electrolyte temperature with a heater, then shutting off the electrolytic current. His measurements continued to show anomalous heat, with no decline, even though with the current shut off, loading declined. This continued for hours, I forget how long. This, if confirmed, would indicate that the actual reaction does not depend on loading, but on palladium structure and the availability of enough deuterium as fuel, and apparently much lower loading is enough.”


    And given that he refuses to believe that his calorimetry has a flaw in it, we have no idea what his experiments actually mean. We know what he claims, but we don’t know how real those claims are.


    “(Maintaining the environmental temperature of a reaction is not clearly "input power." We don't think of the room temperature as a power input.”


    Really? Then how do you account for spontaneous reactions that occur at room temperature? You statement is ridiculous on the face of it. What we need to know from the new Storms’ work you are discussing is “how much power is he putting into the cell (at all times)?” and “How accurately and precisely is he measuring things?” (i.e. what is(are) the relevant calibration equation and constants?) *Any* heat applied is “Power in”.


    “He was maintaining with thermostatic control an elevated temperature in the electrolyte, that's the difference. This is environmental temperature for the cathode.”


    Repeat - *Any* heat applied is “Power in”.


    {snip}

  • @MrSelfSustain


    “The number of intragranular hydrogen bubbles or micro-cavities in the metal is important.” Possibly. Until there is a fully reproducible experimental protocol, we can’t be certain. Don’t forget intergranular too.


    “It is inside of these tiny pockets of hydrogen gas that pressures can reach enormous values.”


    “Enormous” – not really… Arata almost measured it with his double-structure cathode one time, but his pressure sensor topped out at about 10,000 psia as I recall. But it looked like it wasn’t going to go much higher. 20 kpsia is not ‘enormous’.


    “Interestingly, these features increase as hydrogen loading increases.”


    What increases is the effective external gas pressure needed to achieve that loading. 'High' loading allows structural changes to begin in an attempt to relieve the stresses. Such as more dislocations, bubble nucleation and growth, possibly crystal structure changes, and so on. Any bubbles (internal voids) formed can be populated by gaseous molecular hydrogen, at pressures equivalent to the actual or apparent (in the electrochemical loading case) external pressure.


    “They are also found mostly near the surface of the metal powder” Proof of that? SEM/TEM studies of cross-sectioned electrodes, etc.? They should be everywhere. There is a slight possibility that at the surface the lack of the normal ‘capping’ metal layers will make bubble formation easier, but I don’t believe we can quantify that well.


    “(why LENR is more or less a surface phenomenon). “ In your ‘It must be nucklear’ explanation. See my many posts on this for a non-nuclear explanation.


    “And I've also found out why "cracks" and SURFACE cavities seem to be associated with excess heat generation. Hydrogen can be "trapped" by surface cracks and pores.” No, these points are ‘leak’ points, so just the opposite is happening. The hydrogen is not held more strongly, which is what a ‘trap site’ does.


    What I believe Storms is saying is that since the very region of the tip of the crack is a highly unusual one, this allows for his 'NAE' to form there.


    “In these areas, there can be greater levels of hydrogen absoprtion into the lattice.” No, lesser. The conditions at the tip of a crack would cause a deloading of the local material (thus the possible local bubble formation).


    “Basically, as the crack propagates into the metal via hydrogen embrittlement, intergranular bubbles form nearby.”
    Possible I suppose. I’m not positive ‘embrittlement’ causes cracking. These are technical terms with specific definitions, especially in the corrosion science arena, and I’m not an expert on them. But I believe I am correct in saying that crack propagation is an active research area in corrosion science.


    “But it is important we make a distinction between surface cavities (in which the trapped hydrogen has a clear path of migration out during desorption) and INTERIOR bubbles/cavities inside the lattice.”


    In the field of tritium aging effects, decay He agglomerates into bubbles very quickly, and then the large bubbles grow at the expense of small bubbles. Eventually, the large bubbles get close enough that the wall between them cracks and they link. Sometimes this crack is to the surface, which allows the He to escape in a process known as ‘breakout’. Hydrogen bubbles should do the same thing. Also, steam embrittlement studies have shown water bubbles inside a metal formed near the surface can pop out a ‘cap’ of material, leaving a cavity behind.


    “In these bubbles, there is no path for the hydrogen to escape except back through the lattice.” In fact, the internal surface is no different from an external surface and you have an equilibrium established where some H recombines and desorbs as H2, and some H2 dissociates and absorbs as well.


    “This means when the hydrogen bubbles are re-heated rapidly, the already very high pressures can be boosted to incredible levels.” Incredible? No, just up to the point where stuctural cahnges can occur…


    “If the rate is fast enough and the pressure peaks, LENR can form.” Supposition.


    “Or, in some cases, the cavities can literally rupture damaging the lattice. “ Yes…see above.


    “All of this was in the literature when Andrea Rossi launched the JONP.” - Yup.


    “I want to slap myself for not tracking down all this literature sooner.” – Keep working.

    • Official Post

    “It is inside of these tiny pockets of hydrogen gas that pressures can reach enormous values.”


    “Enormous” – not really… Arata almost measured it with his double-structure cathode one time, but his pressure sensor topped out at about 10,000 psia as I recall. But it looked like it wasn’t going to go much higher. 20 kpsia is not ‘enormous’.


    Well, it may have been more than 20 kp - as you yourself say 'his pressure sensor topped out.' And regardless of that, it seems like a lot of pressure to me. I like some of your other points though :)

  • “He was maintaining with thermostatic control an elevated temperature in the electrolyte, that's the difference. This is environmental temperature for the cathode.”


    Repeat - *Any* heat applied is “Power in”.


    So we must take into account heating the room?


    The Storms approach is actually brilliant, and not done enough. The same approach would apply to, say, NiH experiments where a fuel mixture, say nickel and lithal, is heated. One would want to know the behavior of the system when it is simply being heated, all conditions as close as possible to the same as when a fuel mixture is tested.


    Direct heating of the reactor is tricky, because of issues of heat distribution relating to the heat conductivity of the fuel.


    Properly done, heating the electrolyte by a resistance heater is very, very different from joule heating from electrolysis power, where there is an interaction between the heating and other effects of that current, even including the recombination possibility. Maintaining the electrolyte temperature is not "input power to the reaction," it is, instead, looking at the effect of temperature on the reaction, whatever reaction is taking place.


    What Ed was showing was an indication that, once the reaction has been set up, temperature becomes a more critical factor than loading. By isolating the variable, he was able to show that -- or at least a strong indication.


    When I was studying Letts data, I ran into difficulties. Letts was using "constant power" input, which is a bit misleading. The actual situation is constant current, from a programmable constant current power supply, but, then, with feedback so that the current is adjusted when the voltage varies, to maintain constant power. This created a shift in conditions, and I was looking, in his data, for effects associated with onset of apparent XP, since he was turning it on with his lasers. What I found, and when I mentioned it, others said they had seen it, was a drop in cell resistance as the first sign of XP onset. What would cause that?


    Kirk, you know enough to come up with a suspicion, if you will allow yourself to think of a broader range of possibilities. What would predictably cause a sudden drop in electrolytic cell resistance as possibly the first sign of XP?


    You object to what you see as my insulting behavior, but do not realize, apparently, just how insulting you have been, over the years. What goes around comes around. On Wikipedia, I acted to attempt to see that your ideas were expressed, within policy. You basically spat in my face. When you made a major error in your JEM letter, and I pointed it out to you privately, you responded with an insult.


    However, you are the major standing published critic of cold fusion. That deserves a certain level of respect.

  • Well, it may have been more than 20 kp - as you yourself say 'his pressure sensor topped out.' And regardless of that, it seems like a lot of pressure to me. I like some of your other points though


    Baranowski is known for his high pressure work with metal hydrides. He published an article in 1972 on Pd-H at high P (http://www.ingentaconnect.com/…0000016/00000001/art00003).


    In it he discusses Pd-H behavior in the vicinity of up to 25000 atm. That's ~3,675,000 psi. That's 'enormous'...


    20000 psi is reachable by mechanical compressors I believe. The ~4 million psi range requires diamond anvils or other special techniques.

  • “So we must take into account heating the room?”
    When I determine hydrogen absorption isotherms in my lab, I see fluctuations in the pressure of a static system correlated to the room temperature variation. In my case, this is usually not a problem.


    What you wrote indirectly supports the position that one can hand-wave away some considerations, which means that you assume they are unimportant to your experiment. One of my zeroth order Rule of Thumbs is “If you don’t look, you don’t _know_”. One of the primary failings of many scientists is violation of that rule. Instead of saying “I haven’t looked, so I don’t know for sure”, they wave their hands vigorously and say “we all know that…”. So do you need to take room HVAC intro account? I don’t know, have you looked? (And by that I mean all the way through the measurement and interpretation process…)


    “The Storms approach is actually brilliant, and not done enough. The same approach would apply to, say, NiH experiments where a fuel mixture, say nickel and lithal, is heated. One would want to know the behavior of the system when it is simply being heated, all conditions as close as possible to the same as when a fuel mixture is tested.” It’s called a ‘blank’….


    “Direct heating of the reactor is tricky, because of issues of heat distribution relating to the heat conductivity of the fuel.” Really? Heat distribution can be an issue? Who’d a thought…


    “Properly done, heating the electrolyte by a resistance heater is very, very different from joule heating from electrolysis power, where there is an interaction between the heating and other effects of that current, even including the recombination possibility.”


    Well, calorimetrically speaking, not that different. My reanalysis of Storms’ data produced a +/- 2.5% variation in cal. constants (due to chemistry, not randomness), while the difference Storms reported between electrolytic and Joule heater calibration was maximally about 1.7%. A pair-wise diff of ~1% is a common value obtained when sampling a distribution with a span of +/-2.5% (assuming randomness). Storms’ repeated electrolytic calibrations had a diff of ~0.5%. (So the diff in Joule vs. electrolytic was encompassed by the systematic effect I detected.)


    But I agree it is different, especially when you consider mixing that is absent when no bubbles are being formed by electrolysis. That alters the heat transfer.


    I repeat, if you add heat to the system for any reason, it needs to monitored and worked into the interpretation. In fact, it is obvious that if the electrode was producing enough excess heat, you would have to cool the system to maintain temperature, as you yourself noted. Wouldn’t you need to know that to estimate the heat purportedly being produced at the electrode?


    “What Ed was showing was an indication that, once the reaction has been set up, temperature becomes a more critical factor than loading. By isolating the variable, he was able to show that -- or at least a strong indication.”


    So what? We all know that loading and temperature are interrelated…. If the temperature changes the loading will also change in an unconstrained system. Constraints will alter the relationship. All that needs to be characterized.


    “Maintaining the electrolyte temperature is not "input power to the reaction," it is, instead, looking at the effect of temperature on the reaction, whatever reaction is taking place.”


    When you ‘maintain the temperature’, don’t you heat or cool the system? When you heat or cool the system, isn’t the electrode part of that? Don’t you all claim that excess heat is being produced? How can you know that without accounting for the ‘maintenance’ heat and its effects?


    “When I was studying Letts data, I ran into difficulties. Letts was using "constant power" input, which is a bit misleading. The actual situation is constant current, from a programmable constant current power supply, but, then, with feedback so that the current is adjusted when the voltage varies, to maintain constant power. This created a shift in conditions, and I was looking, in his data, for effects associated with onset of apparent XP, since he was turning it on with his lasers. What I found, and when I mentioned it, others said they had seen it, was a drop in cell resistance as the first sign of XP onset. What would cause that?”


    “Kirk, you know enough to come up with a suspicion, if you will allow yourself to think of a broader range of possibilities. What would predictably cause a sudden drop in electrolytic cell resistance as possibly the first sign of XP?”


    Cell resistance comes from two generic places, the electrolyte and the electrodes (and wires). So a drop in cell resistance can come from either place. So first let’s consider the wires, including the electrodes. What causes R to drop? Doesn’t cooling? What could cause cooling? How about unloading….(endothermic remember…) What would cause unloading? How about the formation of a surface state that fosters such? Like would occur if cracking occurred, or if localized surface states (‘SAS’) had a higher propensity to release H2? Both would form new bubbles (or bigger ones), possibly faster, giving an increased amount of reactant for the transported O2, which would result in at-the-electrode recombination and apparent excess heat…after the appropriate time lag due to calorimeter time constant. The electrical detection of this would not be as lagged.


    You say above you get a drop at the onset of XP, but you don’t say if you get XP only when laser is irradiating. If that is true, the laser itself should produce localized heating on the electrode, which will drive that endothermic desorbtion, and you’re back to the above, with an apparent excess heat showing up after the time lag due to the fact that your interpretive calorimetric model is incapable of modeling the two zone heat capture efficiency effect.


    I also would need confirmation of how the amount of laser power deposited is calculated.


    Looking at the electrolyte, a drop in resistance usually implies an increase in charge carriers, i. e. more ions in the liquid. I don’t see too much going on there myself. I suppose the laser might break down ionic clusters and form some new ions, but that is pure guesswork on my part. Feel free to suggest your own method to increase the charge carrier count.


    Enough speculation, as I just realized you didn’t specify the timing of this observation of yours. If it fits the above then fine, otherwise I’d have to rethink things.


    But my point is, ‘mundane’ reasons can easily be brought up that need to be eliminated before we turn to the less likely answer of LENR.


    “You object to what you see as my insulting behavior, but do not realize, apparently, just how insulting you have been, over the years. What goes around comes around. On Wikipedia, I acted to attempt to see that your ideas were expressed, within policy. You basically spat in my face. When you made a major error in your JEM letter, and I pointed it out to you privately, you responded with an insult.”


    What you fail to mention is the weeks and months *prior* to that that I had to deal with you and your obstruction to my editing attempts at Wikipedia. You had me well-conditioned to expect your commentary to be flawed, just as it is here, so it took a bit for the ’mistake’ to become clear. In fact as I have responded to you here, it ended up giving me an even stronger case against the imaginary heat-helium correlation.The primary problem with you however, is you keep attempting to attribute certain mental states to me with no evidence of such. You don’t have ESP, and you have no clue what I do or don’t know, so just can the attributions and stick to discussing facts.


    “However, you are the major standing published critic of cold fusion. That deserves a certain level of respect.”

  • “So we must take into account heating the room?”
    When I determine hydrogen absorption isotherms in my lab, I see fluctuations in the pressure of a static system correlated to the room temperature variation. In my case, this is usually not a problem.


    What you wrote indirectly supports the position that one can hand-wave away some considerations, which means that you assume they are unimportant to your experiment. One of my zeroth order Rule of Thumbs is “If you don’t look, you don’t _know_”. One of the primary failings of many scientists is violation of that rule. Instead of saying “I haven’t looked, so I don’t know for sure”, they wave their hands vigorously and say “we all know that…”. So do you need to take room HVAC intro account? I don’t know, have you looked? (And by that I mean all the way through the measurement and interpretation process…)


    You already know. Variation in the room temperature can affect experimental results. So ideally, one controls the temperature. It is possible but less satisfactory to record the temperature and factor this into results, but this then can introduce possible analytical errors.


    HVAC is a method of obtaining constant room temperature. Cold fusion experiments do consider and record room temperature. Constant room temperature is considered desirable, and I would hope you would agree.


    However, "room temperature" really refers to the environment of the experiment. Pons and Fleischmann used highly-controlled constant temperature water baths that their experiments were submerged in (if I'm correct). The heating of those baths, as long as they were adequately stirred so that there weren't hot spots, would not be considered input power to the experiment.


    It was merely maintaining a constant temperature that was probably elevated from room temperature. Critique could be, of course, as hinted, if the temperature was not actually uniform.


    As a legitimate concern, for example, Storms heated his electrolyte. I have not given and don't recall the details, but suppose it was simple immersion heat. If the electrolyte was not stirred, this could certainly introduce error.


    So details matter, but the concern there is not about "input power," it is about something that could throw calorimetry off by having an "environment" that is not constant temperature.


    In the case of Songsheng Jiang, environmental temperature matters. Songsheng ran an NiH experiment, with a Chinese box type arrangement, an inner core that contained the fuel and a thermocouple, call it T1, then two layers with two thermocouples, and then T4 on the outside of the large insulating container of the experiment. In the middle of the experiment, apparently since T4 was getting quite hot, he turned on a fan, cooling the whole experiment. That was a calorimetry disaster, one of the possible sources of problems with that experiment. Failure to maintain constant conditions. This was not surprising for a first run! The problem with Songsheng Jiang was that he attempted to draw conclusions from an exploration that was poorly controlled and where two out of four thermocouples failed in operation. He'd used the wrong type of thermocouple if he was going to go as hot as he went. And in a hot hydrogen atmosphere, thermocouples may fail rapidly. Lack of experience. You want to cool the outside, control that condition, do it from the beginning and the placement of the fan could be quite important.

  • “Kirk, you know enough to come up with a suspicion, if you will allow yourself to think of a broader range of possibilities. What would predictably cause a sudden drop in electrolytic cell resistance as possibly the first sign of XP?”


    I actually was hoping that Kirk could think of a LENR cause. He got close, but no cigar. He was only able to think of possibilities consistent with his view that it's all artifact. Let's look:


    Quote

    Cell resistance comes from two generic places, the electrolyte and the electrodes (and wires). So a drop in cell resistance can come from either place. So first let’s consider the wires, including the electrodes. What causes R to drop? Doesn’t cooling? What could cause cooling? How about unloading….(endothermic remember…) What would cause unloading? How about the formation of a surface state that fosters such? Like would occur if cracking occurred, or if localized surface states (‘SAS’) had a higher propensity to release H2? Both would form new bubbles (or bigger ones), possibly faster, giving an increased amount of reactant for the transported O2, which would result in at-the-electrode recombination and apparent excess heat…after the appropriate time lag due to calorimeter time constant. The electrical detection of this would not be as lagged.


    Let me be a bit more specific. The resistance drop is quite sudden, abrupt, then followed by the rapid appearance of XP. If one does not look closely at the data, the resistance drop is easily overlooked. I was unhappy with the "constant power" set up because it created an additional variable.


    I would expect surface state change to take place more slowly. The change in conditions was not great, merely quite noticeable if one looked at the data. Voltage dropped. Then current was increased to compensate. Remember, constant-current supply, until the programming is changed. And the feedback in the system was such that the computer changed the input current to maintain constant power. But power input is not particularly considered a causative variable, input current is (because it affects gas evolution rate and has some other effects that may be involved in the reaction). That voltage drop was distinct. Now, I haven't looked at this data for years, to go over it in detail would take time that I don't have right now. However, my recollection is that, as well, the lasers were turned on -- or polarization was rotated.


    Quote

    You say above you get a drop at the onset of XP, but you don’t say if you get XP only when laser is irradiating. If that is true, the laser itself should produce localized heating on the electrode, which will drive that endothermic desorbtion, and you’re back to the above, with an apparent excess heat showing up after the time lag due to the fact that your interpretive calorimetric model is incapable of modeling the two zone heat capture efficiency effect.


    You are thinking only of possible artifacts as against a LENR conclusion. I'm asking if you can think in the other direction, not suggesting that you *conclude* in the other direction, but merely in a hope that your thinking can expand to encompass a wider set of possibilities. In no way would this force a conclusion.


    In the version of the experiment I am describing -- which may be at some variance with the actual experiment, because of memory failure -- yes, the laser turns on and the resistance drop is seen rapidly, then the XP shows up in the calorimetry after a normal delay. I think his calorimetry was fairly fast-response isoperibolic, in these experiments.


    Yes, heating of the cathode by the laser is conceivable. Against this is that the laser is relatively low power and most of the energy is reflected. As well, the effect depended on the beat frequency of two lasers, whereas direct laser heating would not care about the beat frequency (in the THz region). Heating the cathode would produce, as the cathode heats up, a lowering of resistance, I'd expect, but not the rapid dip seen. Let's suggest, for the purpose of discussion, that laser stimulation off-resonance produces no effect. The beat frequency only contains a small percentage of the laser power, and would have little or no effect on absorption. So discard the heating hypothesis for the moment.


    Quote

    I also would need confirmation of how the amount of laser power deposited is calculated.


    In order to what? This is, at this point, a thought experiment. Assume that the absorbed laser power is negligible.


    Quote

    Looking at the electrolyte, a drop in resistance usually implies an increase in charge carriers, i. e. more ions in the liquid. I don’t see too much going on there myself. I suppose the laser might break down ionic clusters and form some new ions, but that is pure guesswork on my part. Feel free to suggest your own method to increase the charge carrier count.


    Once again, you are looking for an artifact, not what Letts actually concludes, though Letts did not discuss the resistance drop, it is merely something that I noticed in his data and that was then confirmed by others, yes, they had seen that also.


    I obviously have an idea and I am seeing if you can come up with it. It should not be difficult. I will give a hint below.


    Remember, I am looking at possibilities, not something proven. However, if we cannot see possibilities, we become highly likely to miss reality, if it is something we would not ordinarily expect.


    Quote

    Enough speculation, as I just realized you didn’t specify the timing of this observation of yours. If it fits the above then fine, otherwise I’d have to rethink things.


    But my point is, ‘mundane’ reasons can easily be brought up that need to be eliminated before we turn to the less likely answer of LENR.


    To you, LENR is less likely. Are you aware that this is subjective? I am suggesting opening up and developing multiple possibilities (which would include all the possible artifacts, as many as we can imagine), but if we have an established Baysian prior, as you apparently do, this can bias how we examine the possibilities, and we may not even think of what is really happening. This occurs on all sides, by the way. You think that researchers are biased in the other direction, and refuse to look at your ideas because they think them improbable.


    Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.


    You only need to go one small step from where you were. You noted that anything that would increase ionization in the electrolyte would lower resistance. What could increase ionization?


    Consider the "hamburger" in SPAWAR experiments. It is often attributed to chemical damage, and Earthtech appeared to confirm this. What would increase chemical damage, because it is not directly caused by immersion in the electrolyte, the damage only occurs in very close proximity to the cathode, maybe actual contact or with only a very thin presence of electrolyte?


    I am asking you to come up with an explanation that involves LENR, and that also fits with other data. That is not proof. It merely creates a possible testable hypothesis.

  • What you fail to mention is the weeks and months *prior* to that that I had to deal with you and your obstruction to my editing attempts at Wikipedia.


    Kirk, there is a bit of a disconnect from history here. Before I pointed out the error in the JEM Letter, I had long been under conflict of interest restrictions on Wikipedia and could not "obstruct" your editing attempts. I think you may have been quite confused. Where I could, I attempted to preserve your work and to find a way to incorporate at least some of it in the encyclopedia, but you did not understand how Wikipedia works. That is common with scientists, by the way. It's a arcane, not what most would expect. Experts often get themselves banned. I never attempted to set up any sanction that would impede you. As well, I opened a door for you on Wikiversity, to encourage you to fully express yourself. You never took advantage of the opportunity. It's still open.


    I also considered your objections and critiques, and responded. You did not take well to that. However, these were mostly discussions on your User talk page, with no effect on your ability to edit. I suspect that if you look back, it would be difficult to find the "obstruction" you mention, at least not obstruction from me. I may have attempted to explain policy to you, and you might have thought that this was pushing a personal agenda.

  • I am asking you to come up with an explanation that involves LENR, and that also fits with other data. That is not proof. It merely creates a possible testable hypothesis.


    Why would you assume I can come up with a better 'LENR' explanations that Storms, McKubre, Miles, etc.? I don't think I could.


    Further, their explanations so far have yielded nothing of note with respect to establishing how to reproducibly, without fail, produce excess heat. I don't feel I can improve on their work, especially since I personally think there is a different kind of explanation that will give the field that level of control. I could make lots of suggestions there, but no one is listening.


    I really don't want to waste my time on a dead issue.


    Note: Szpack codep may give consistent excess heat production (sometimes, see Hagelstein's attempt at using it...) but that type of electrode is highly consistent with my mundane explanation. I take this as proof of the non-LENR nature of the FPHE, not the 'nucklear' one.

  • “Enormous” – not really… Arata almost measured it with his double-structure cathode one time, but his pressure sensor topped out at about 10,000 psia as I recall. But it looked like it wasn’t going to go much higher. 20 kpsia is not ‘enormous’.


    From a tank pressure standpoint 10 kpsia are as high as a professional / military diver might see in say the tiny oxygen
    'make up' tank for a rebreathing apparatus... density equivalent roughly to cryogenic LO2 but giving much longer underwater times since no boil off .


    The diamond anvil maximum pressures are, if I recall correctly much much lower than Nernst pressure computed at an electrode face with even a modest overvoltage. I don't have the numbers at hand, but they can be amazing. No one to my knowledge has yet taken the Nernst pressure argument to a convincing explanation of CF--- but I'd like to see it.

  • The diamond anvil maximum pressures are, if I recall correctly much much lower than Nernst pressure computed at an electrode face with even a modest overvoltage. I don't have the numbers at hand, but they can be amazing. No one to my knowledge has yet taken the Nernst pressure argument to a convincing explanation of CF--- but I'd like to see it.


    The Nernst pressure is, I believe, what F&P brought up at one of their press conferences, and I think it was 10^23 atm. *However* the correct quantity to use is not pressure, but fugacity. Pressure is generally related to fugacity via a simple multiplicative fugacity coefficient.
    Hydrogen's fugacity coefficient is quite large. The fugacity of importance is much lower than the computed Nernst pressure. F&P knew this but chose to go for the splash caused by talking about 10^23 pressure. Says a lot about their POV.

  • I would expect surface state change to take place more slowly.


    Absolutely. The data suggests hundreds of hours required. But once it turns on, it is on (until it goes off...). My question was about how fast it turned on and when it appeared in relation to the observed resistance change. As I noted, I would expect some lag between the two, but the initial change in calorimetric output might occur reasonably quickly as well. I would expect some consistency between 'heat' events in the same apparatus.


    The Szpak codep process shortens this considerably. It produces high surface-to-volume ratio material of a dendritic structure, which is both a superior bubble trap and a superior filter to extract whatever is floating around in the electrolyte to make the SAS.

  • This is, at this point, a thought experiment. Assume that the absorbed laser power is negligible.


    Actually that isn't a good assumption. The laser does deposit heat, which does register, and which will be misinterpreted as showing excess heat if there is a CCS. Matter of fact I tend to take the 'Letts-Cravens' experiments as supportive of the whole CCS thing.


    Correction: It will possibly show as excess if the %power deposited is high enough. If in reality only 2% of the power is deposited and the calorimeter registers 5% response, people would probably assume the laser deposited 5%.

  • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:


    Actually that isn't a good assumption. The laser does deposit heat, which does register, and which will be misinterpreted as showing excess heat if there is a CCS. Matter of fact I tend to take the 'Letts-Cravens' experiments as supportive of the whole CCS thing.


    Correction: It will possibly show as excess if the %power deposited is high enough. If in reality only 2% of the power is deposited and the calorimeter registers 5% response, people would probably assume the laser deposited 5%.


    This is about thinking and approach. The assumption was for a thought experiment, so it was neither good nor bad. It was a proposed assumption, allowing thinking to look for other possibilities. While I used that experiment as a basis, it is not the point. And, by the way, do you think that Letts considered laser power? What would you expect? I haven't looked at those papers for a long time.


    The question of whether or not laser power explains his apparent XP is a distinct one, not asked by me. What if it doesn't? Really, Kirk, I'm surprised and I mean that.


    To repeat the question, how could LENR explain the resistance drop?

  • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:


    Why would you assume I can come up with a better 'LENR' explanations that Storms, McKubre, Miles, etc.? I don't think I could.


    I have not asked you to come up with something "better." I have never seen any commentary from them on the resistance drop. And it is only a short step from what you have already said. Basically, Kirk, I infer that you have a mind-block, because it is rather obvious. What you called the CCS hypothesis (it is misnamed, creating part of the rejection you experience) probably is standing in the way.


    The "explanation" is not about the CF mechanism, and of the three you list, there is only one who is proposing a mechanism, generally (Storms). What I am fishing for is consistent with Storms' explanation, but it could also be consistent with other explanations. It does involve "surface effect."


    Quote

    Further, their explanations so far have yielded nothing of note with respect to establishing how to reproducibly, without fail, produce excess heat. I don't feel I can improve on their work, especially since I personally think there is a different kind of explanation that will give the field that level of control. I could make lots of suggestions there, but no one is listening.


    What I'm fishing for will not create reliability. It is simply a possible understanding of an observation. It is not, in itself, "proof," because, as you know, there are other possible explanations. Kirk, your extensive study, focused on your hypothesis, has created an uneven playing field. This is normal, by the way, we all do this. But science asks us to step outside of that, and to attempt to prove ourselves wrong. That process requires us to come up with alternatives. If you only pick alternatives to examine that are consistent with your expectations, you may miss the reality, if it happens to be different.


    Quote

    I really don't want to waste my time on a dead issue.


    Then why are you wasting your time with LENR, which you apparently believe is a dead issue, unreal, a set of artifacts -- and an unconfirmed anomaly of little consequence other than fooling a crowd of scientists? If you cannot imagine and weigh alternatives, you will be unable to communicate with others who have different alternatives in mind. How's it been going, Kirk?


    This is an exercise, call it a game. You have extensive experience, quite enough to come up with what I have in mind. Instead of my telling you what it is, how about seeing if you can come up with it? Come on. We are both old men. It's good for the brain to stretch it.


    Quote

    Note: Szpack codep may give consistent excess heat production (sometimes, see Hagelstein's attempt at using it...) but that type of electrode is highly consistent with my mundane explanation. I take this as proof of the non-LENR nature of the FPHE, not the 'nucklear' one.


    Your use of the word "proof" betrays attachment. How codep heat would "prove" your "mundane explanation" -- which is actually not "ordinary," it apparently contradicts the extensive experience of most electrochemists -- is beyond me. This would be extremely weak anecdotal evidence, on the order of "it could be ..." and therefore "it is," because you give greater weight to your own expectations and lesser weight to those of others.


    In fact, there was almost no experience with highly loaded PdD; McKubre immediately realized that Pons and Fleischmann must be working in the unexplored territory of high loading, because he had extensive experience with loading below 70%. We may easily believe that our experience of reality, where the experience is familiar, must extend into what we have not yet seen. This is an extension of babies learning that we are still there even if we move behind some object. It's normal. And limiting.


    There is a problem with single-measure experiments. I hope you understand why I consider heat/helium correlation the only confirmed direct evidence of the nuclear nature of the FPHE, and why I promoted for some years the confirmation of this with increased precision. As you know, I assume, that study is under way. Care to predict the results from your CCS theory?


    Within the relatively anecdotal evidence as to excess heat, there are correlations with conditions. For an effect to be large with deuterium and missing or almost missing with hydrogen is an indication contrary to your hypoethesis. Yes, deuterium and hydrogen behave differently, as to the physical chemistry, but a great difference? Again, not proof, but "evidence" which is a far better term to use. By confusing evidence with proof, both pseudoskeptics and believers are led into many logical errors.

    Edited 2 times, last by Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax ().

  • Amongst all the psycobabble, Abd does make one good point… “Then why are you wasting your time with LENR,” … but it really should be “why am I wasting my time with Abd?”


    The answer is that I realize I have no hope of changing Abd’s mind, he is a “true believer” and can’t be bothered to deal with the facts and the evidence in a rational and logical manner. But…there are others on this forum who may not be such a lost cause, and it is for them that I try to correct Abd’s fallacies. To whit:


    “I hope you understand why I consider heat/helium correlation the only confirmed direct evidence of the nuclear nature of the FPHE”


    Because of his bias, Abd fails to realize that there is no solid evidence of any true excess heat having ever been measured. Thus there is no validity in the correlation statistics derived from comparing heat and helium numbers. Further, there is no reason to believe the He numbers represent anything but leaks. Make a real setup (not a con or a fake) that makes 7-10 vol% He in a closed system while ensuring the surrounding’s He concentration remains at ppm levels (even hundreds of ppm, which is quite possible). Close the loop on an excess heat gizmo and make it self-sustain for months. Then you might have some validity. Until then it is all wishful thinking that any LENR-driven physics/chemistry is occurring. Wishful thinking is fine if you maintain some balance, but generically speaking, the CF community went over the edge years ago.


    “For an effect to be large with deuterium and missing or almost missing with hydrogen is an indication contrary to your hypoethesis.”


    No it is not. I explained this in my last big post, but one more time…chemistry is the study of how chemicals react, and the trends detectable across the Periodic Table. When an effect is found in one system, a chemist immediately wonders how one can propagate that across the table to near neighbors. In the specific case above, it is clear that what was done to Pd (for example) to make it react with D2 may not directly work with Ni or Pt. But would modifications that adjust for the chemistry differences? In the case of Ni, the answer is certainly ‘yes’, researchers have shown CF effects with protium on Ni. In the case of Pt, also ‘yes’, see Storms’ papers for example. My hypothesis covers all these… (P.S. I ‘expect’ that Sc or Bi could show ‘excess heat’ effects with the ‘right’ treatments too…i.e. I have no inherent limitations as Abd implies.)


    “Yes, deuterium and hydrogen behave differently, as to the physical chemistry, but a great difference?”


    For the observers…isotope effects are usually thought of as being based on relative mass changes. This is further based in the simplistic Hook’s Law approach to understanding bonds and molecular vibrations. The relevant factor that falls out of that analysis is the square root of the mass ratio. So for 235-U vs 239-U that would be sqrt(239/235) = 1.00847. In other words a 0.8% difference. However for protium vs deuterium, the number is 1.41, or a 40% difference. It’s tough to work with a 0.8% difference, but it can be done of course. It is 'trivial' to work with (and observe in real life) a 40% difference. And I at least consider such a large difference to be ‘great’, because the observed facts shows that hydrogen isotope effects are the largest around…


    “because he [McKubre] had extensive experience with loading below 70%” Really? Evidence of that?


    I wrote “I take this as proof of the non-LENR nature of the FPHE” to which Abd replied “Your use of the word "proof" betrays attachment.”


    I was a little sloppy here with the word ‘proof’, so let me expand and expound on the issue.


    In the process of developing a theory, one collects a set of experimental observations, formulates a hypothesis, and then tests the hypothesis with the observations, some of which may be acquired in subsequent additional work. If the hypothesis holds up through several rounds of this, it begins to earn the right to be called a ‘theory’, especially if it becomes a little more general. In my development of the at-the-electrode (ATE) recombination theory, I started with the Storms’ data, but I also folded in prior data such as any and all calorimetric studies reported in the literature, and some that weren’t (McK’s 1998 report, the ‘M4’ run in particular). Also, the negatives were included, first to emphasize the low rate of success in standard F&P experiments, and then to incorporate the Oriani report using isolated electrodes (which is the normal way of doing electrochemistry). Putting that all together with the mathematical results of the CCS problem in Storms’ report and the implications of the two-zone cell/calorimeter model, I came to a physical/chemical picture of what would produce all those results.


    *Then* I observed the Szpak ir video and stills from it and the increased success of the codep prep technique, and noted that that conformed to expectations, which further increases the confidence in the ATE theory. In that sense, the Szpak data is (loosely) more ‘proof’ of the ATE theory. I continue to look for further ‘proofs’ and especially for contradictions, which are actually more important, and haven’t found any yet that require a change in the ATE theory. However, that negative ‘proof’ (evidence) may show up tomorrow. That’s the way it is with theories (and to a lesser extent with ‘Laws’).


    In any case, Abd’s psycobabble-term ‘attachment’ is unwarranted. I am just following the standard protocol. When he claims to have some ‘negative’ evidence, I of course analyze it to see if that is true, and I’ve never found a case where he was right.


    “of the three you list, there is only one who is proposing a mechanism, generally (Storms).” McK pushed the high loading mantra, which incorporates the D-D fusion mechanism. Miles pushes the He results, also pushing the D-D fusion mechanism. All with modifications of course to ‘explain’ (or not as the case may be) the disagreement between ‘cold’ and ‘hot’ fusion.


    “What I'm fishing for…” …is a ‘scientific’ veneer for an exercise in intellectualism. Not interested. I want to see the hard data, the derived conclusions, and the logical pathways between. I will then evaluate the consistency of all that, and in the final analysis, look at the reproducibility level. Cold fusion is a great dream. Maybe someone will finally show it exists. But so far, no luck.


    (BTW, I actually already did what you requested…I suggested excess heat events were caused by leprechauns running across my backyard (the ‘heat-leprechaun correlation’)! That’s LENR (a Leprechaun Event – Neighborhood Race (they only cross backyards in significant numbers during a race…)) right? Oh…not ‘scientific’ enough for you? OK. No problem. Of course ‘heat-He correlation’ is about as equally well founded…)

  • Re "nuclear or not, that is the question", I would love to know your opinion on the production of neutrons from the so-called fracto-fusion in hydrides. Several studies have shown that when one triggers a rapid temperature increase in an hydride, the emission of neutrons is observed. This phenomenon, and maybe more importantly that the underlying reaction is nuclear, is generally accepted. However, I don't understand the physics behind and I'm not aware of any "good" explanation. Storms believes this is unrelated to LENR.


    I have not looked in any detail at fracto-fusion, so I'm sorry but I have no strongly-held opinion. That being said, my knee-jerk reaction is the usual 'unlikely' or 'maybe there is something there, but probably not what the proponents are claiming' (which was my reaction to the 1989 F&P announcement BTW). I do know that people reported x-ray emission during the peeling back of Scotch-type tape, so who knows? I also recall there was an appendix about this in a book (Hoffman?) written several years back speculating it was due to accidental cooling of electronics by boil-off LN2. Also, I have always made it clear I have no expertise in electronic radiation counting instrumentation, so I can't fairly evaluate those type of claims anyway. You'll have to find someone else to comment. But I would listen to Ed, he is a reasonably good scientist except for his CF bias.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.